Prabhat Kishore v. Smt. Rukmani Devi

Judgment

1. The Petitioner is a tenant-turned-property-transferee of premises situate at Rama Market, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Originally, the premises were the subject of P.A. Case No. 01 of 2013, instituted by the Respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release for the alleged bona fide requirement of her grandson. During the pendency of those proceedings, the parties entered into a written compromise dated 22.04.2013, duly verified before the Prescribed Authority. Under the said compromise, it was mutually agreed that the ownership and possession of the tenanted premises bearing No. 435, Rama Market would vest in the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent would acquire the terrace portions of properties bearing Nos. 433 and 434 and the staircase. The compromise further recorded that the parties would execute the consequential sale deeds.

2. In view of the said compromise, the release application was

disposed of on 23.04.2013 by the learned Prescribed Authority on agreed terms. It is further case of the Petitioner that despite repeated requests, the Respondent did not execute sale deeds in terms of the compromise, but instead, filed a fresh release application being P.A. Case No. 05 of Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 1 Ashish Naithani J. 2020, again invoking Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, alleging bona fide need in respect of the same premises, without disclosing that the ownership had already stood transferred under the compromise.

3. In the said P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, the Petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected on 22.11.2020, leading to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2539 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court on 05.07.2023, holding that although Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies to proceedings under the Act, the defence must ordinarily be raised in objections.

4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed written objections and subsequently moved an amendment application, seeking to introduce specific pleadings relating to (i) the compromise and mutual transfer of ownership, (ii) various sale deeds executed by the Respondent divesting her of ownership in adjoining shops, and (iii) pendency of Suit No. 81 of 2023 arising out of the same compromise. The Respondent filed objections thereto.

5. Vide order dated 22.02.2024, the learned Prescribed Authority partly allowed the amendment, to the limited extent of permitting the fact of filing of Suit No. 81 of 2023 to be added, but rejected other proposed amendments concerning the sale deeds and alleged lack of bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority held that such amendments were not necessary for adjudication of the release application.

6. Aggrieved by the partial rejection of the amendment application, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking supervisory correction of the impugned order. Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proposed amendments in paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C are integral to the real controversy in the release application. It is urged that the Respondent’s alleged subsequent conduct of selling shops and dealing with the properties obtained under the compromise goes directly to the issue of her bona fide need and availability of suitable accommodation, which is the core question in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The sale deeds and transactions sought to be pleaded are said to be either subsequent developments or events that came to the notice of the Petitioner at a later point of time, and are therefore necessary to be brought on record to enable a just decision of the dispute.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the well settled principle that amendments to pleadings should be approached with a liberal and pragmatic attitude, particularly in the case of a defendant’s written statement.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority has neither found the amendment to be mala fide nor has held that it would change the nature of the proceedings, and therefore, rejection of material portions of the amendment is contrary to the settled principles.

10. It is further contended that the stage at which the amendment was sought, that is, after conclusion of the Respondent’s evidence but before commencement of the Petitioner’s evidence, is not such as to cause any irremediable prejudice. If the amendment is allowed, the Respondent can always be given liberty to file an additional reply and to adduce such further evidence as she may consider necessary. The Petitioner asserts that the omission of the proposed averments in the original written Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 3 Ashish Naithani J. statement was inadvertent and that the amendment application was filed as soon as the omission was noticed while preparing the evidence.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the proceedings in P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020 had progressed substantially and were at the stage of the Petitioner’s evidence when the amendment application was filed. It is contended that the facts sought to be introduced by way of paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C pertain to alleged sales and dealings with shops and properties which, in any event, were within the knowledge of the Petitioner long before filing of the written statement. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner has failed to establish due diligence in terms of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

12. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the nature of the proposed amendment, in so far as it incorporates details of sale deeds, alleged alienation of shops and disputes about the compromise, would enlarge the compass of inquiry in the release application and effectively convert the proceedings into a title dispute, which is beyond the limited jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is urged that the learned Prescribed Authority has exercised a sound discretion in allowing the amendment only to the extent of bringing on record the factum of Original Suit No. 81 of 2023, while declining the rest.

13. Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the impugned order is a reasoned exercise of discretion by the Prescribed Authority and does not warrant interference. Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 4 Ashish Naithani J.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

15. The proceedings before the learned Prescribed Authority arise out of a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, wherein the Respondent seeks release of the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Petitioner is contesting the release and has already filed his objections. It is not in dispute that the evidence of the Respondent has been concluded and that the matter is now at the stage of the Petitioner’s evidence.

16. The amendment application filed by the Petitioner seeks to introduce certain additional pleadings, primarily contained in the proposed paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C of the written statement. By these proposed paragraphs, the Petitioner wishes to bring on record the alleged subsequent conduct of the Respondent in dealing with various shops and properties, as also the details of transactions which, according to the Petitioner, have a direct bearing on the question whether the Respondent has any continuing bona fide need for the premises in question.

17. The core defence that the Petitioner seeks to advance through the proposed amendment is that, in the backdrop of the earlier compromise between the parties and the exchange of properties recorded therein, the subsequent alienations and dealings by the Respondent indicate that she is not in genuine need of the premises and that sufficient alternative accommodation is available. The plea is, thus, not a new or foreign issue, but a further development of the existing defence based on absence of bona fide requirement and availability of other suitable premises.

18. It is well settled that in proceedings of this nature, what is material is the real controversy between the parties, namely, whether the requirement pleaded by the landlord is bona fide and whether Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 5 Ashish Naithani J. comparative hardship justifies grant of release. Facts which have a direct and proximate connection with these issues ought, ordinarily, to be placed on record so that the adjudication is complete and not confined to a truncated factual foundation. The Petitioner’s attempt is to place before the Prescribed Authority the entire pattern of subsequent dealings by the Respondent, so that the issue of bona fide requirement can be assessed in the correct factual setting.

19. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the Respondent that allowing the amendment would convert the release proceedings into a title or declaratory dispute does not appear to be well founded. The Petitioner is not seeking, in these proceedings, any declaration of title or adjudication on the validity of particular sale deeds. The proposed pleadings only bring those transactions to the notice of the Prescribed Authority as facts having a bearing on the genuineness of the pleaded need. The Prescribed Authority will remain confined to the limited enquiry permissible under the Rent Act and will not be required to return any final finding on questions of title or validity of documents.

20. As regards the stage of the proceedings, the amendment has been sought after the conclusion of the Respondent’s evidence and before the Petitioner has entered the witness box. While it would undoubtedly have been preferable for the Petitioner to seek the amendment earlier, the delay by itself is not sufficient to reject the amendment, particularly when the nature of the proposed pleas is such that any prejudice to the Respondent can be adequately met by affording her an opportunity to file an additional reply and, if necessary, to lead further evidence.

21. The impugned order partly allows the amendment, but only to the limited extent of permitting a reference to the institution of a civil suit. At the same time, it declines the proposed paragraphs that contain the Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 6 Ashish Naithani J. detailed factual foundation explaining why the subsequent transactions are asserted to be relevant to the Respondent’s claimed requirement. This has the effect of allowing a bare reference to the pendency of a suit while excluding the substance of the defence that flows from the pleaded transactions. Such a selective approach does not appear to be consistent with the object of deciding the real controversy between the parties.

22. The learned Prescribed Authority has not recorded any finding that the amendment is mala fide, that it will change the nature of the proceedings, or that it will cause such prejudice to the Respondent as cannot be compensated in terms of costs and appropriate procedural safeguards. The rejection is essentially premised on an assumption that the Petitioner can work out his remedies elsewhere. In my considered view, once it is accepted that the facts sought to be introduced are germane to the question of bona fide requirement, they ought to be permitted to be pleaded in the very proceedings where that question falls for determination.

23. This Court is conscious that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is to be exercised with circumspection. However, where the subordinate court declines to permit an amendment which is directly connected with the core issue in dispute, and thereby restricts its own ability to adjudicate the controversy on a full and fair factual foundation, such refusal amounts to a jurisdictional error. In the facts of the present case, interference is warranted to ensure that the learned Prescribed Authority is in a position to consider the entire defence of the Petitioner while deciding the release application. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 7 Ashish Naithani J. The impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Prescribed Authority, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, is set aside to the extent it rejects the Petitioner’s prayer for amendment by way of proposed paragraphs 52A, 52B and 52C of the written statement. The amendment application filed by the Petitioner shall stand allowed in its entirety. The Petitioner shall carry out the amendment in the written statement within such period as may be fixed by the learned Prescribed Authority, and shall file an amended written statement accordingly. It shall be open to the Respondent, upon service of the amended written statement, to file an additional reply within a reasonable time to be fixed by the learned Prescribed Authority and, if so advised, to move an application seeking leave to adduce such further evidence as may be necessary to meet the amended pleadings. Any such application shall be considered and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Arti (Ashish Naithani J.) 25.11.2025 Writ Petition No. 668 of 2024, Prabhat Kishore Vs Rukmani Devi- 8 Ashish Naithani J.